In keeping with my policy of staying way behind the bleeding edge of
technology, the only DVD burner I have is a stand-alone Sony unit that
I feed video from my camcorder or DVD player.

What do you fellow lurkers recommend for an external DVD burner that's
easy to move from PC to PC?

Thanks!

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I can see November from my house :-)

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 09:03:09 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

In keeping with my policy of staying way behind the bleeding edge of
technology, the only DVD burner I have is a stand-alone Sony unit that
I feed video from my camcorder or DVD player.

What do you fellow lurkers recommend for an external DVD burner that's
easy to move from PC to PC?

Thanks!

...Jim Thompson

As they're only worth about $17* each these days I don't bother moving
them and just have one in every box. USB keys are easier for netbooks.
I do have a Samsung SE-S084 external drive that powers itself off of
TWO USB ports, but I think I only used it once or twice. IIRC, it
worked fine.

*newegg today,either IDE or SATA (Samsung/Liteon) with free shipping.

Nico Coesel wrote:

Jim Thompson
wrote:

In keeping with my policy of staying way behind the bleeding edge of
technology, the only DVD burner I have is a stand-alone Sony unit that
I feed video from my camcorder or DVD player.

What do you fellow lurkers recommend for an external DVD burner that's
easy to move from PC to PC?

Avoid anything with a parallel port. USB is the way to go these days.


I've never seen a parallel port DVD burner.


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:59:11 -0400, the renowned "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Nico Coesel wrote:

Jim Thompson
wrote:

In keeping with my policy of staying way behind the bleeding edge of
technology, the only DVD burner I have is a stand-alone Sony unit that
I feed video from my camcorder or DVD player.

What do you fellow lurkers recommend for an external DVD burner that's
easy to move from PC to PC?

Avoid anything with a parallel port. USB is the way to go these days.


I've never seen a parallel port DVD burner.

CD writer, yes. Eg. HP 7200e, but that's probably more than a decade
old.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Jim Thompson wrote:

In keeping with my policy of staying way behind the bleeding edge of
technology, the only DVD burner I have is a stand-alone Sony unit that
I feed video from my camcorder or DVD player.

What do you fellow lurkers recommend for an external DVD burner that's
easy to move from PC to PC?


http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?InvtId=GP08LU11 is $40.


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:59:11 -0400, the renowned "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Nico Coesel wrote:

Jim Thompson
wrote:

In keeping with my policy of staying way behind the bleeding edge of
technology, the only DVD burner I have is a stand-alone Sony unit that
I feed video from my camcorder or DVD player.

What do you fellow lurkers recommend for an external DVD burner that's
easy to move from PC to PC?

Avoid anything with a parallel port. USB is the way to go these days.


I've never seen a parallel port DVD burner.

CD writer, yes. Eg. HP 7200e, but that's probably more than a decade
old.


I have a couple parallel port CDROM drives, but the idea of using a
parallel port for a DVD? It would be a very slow & painful process.


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message news
In keeping with my policy of staying way behind the bleeding edge of
technology, the only DVD burner I have is a stand-alone Sony unit that
I feed video from my camcorder or DVD player.

What do you fellow lurkers recommend for an external DVD burner that's
easy to move from PC to PC?

Thanks!

...Jim Thompson
My laptop plays dvd/cds but will not record them feh

I bought a cheap cable that connects any type of parallel IDE drive (2.5",
3.5" and DVD drive) from Newegg for $20. Bought it originally to salvage
files from a friend's dead laptop. Cable came with an external 5V/12V power
supply for bigger drives. I keep an old DVD burner (that I rescued from a
scrap pile), in the car and can now burn the occasional disk on the road. A
bit cumbersome but does the trick.
Oppie

On 9/28/2010 5:46 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:59:11 -0400, the renowned "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Nico Coesel wrote:

Jim
wrote:

In keeping with my policy of staying way behind the bleeding edge of
technology, the only DVD burner I have is a stand-alone Sony unit that
I feed video from my camcorder or DVD player.

What do you fellow lurkers recommend for an external DVD burner that's
easy to move from PC to PC?

Avoid anything with a parallel port. USB is the way to go these days.


I've never seen a parallel port DVD burner.

CD writer, yes. Eg. HP 7200e, but that's probably more than a decade
old.


I have a couple parallel port CDROM drives, but the idea of using a
parallel port for a DVD? It would be a very slow& painful process.


And why would that be? In this case, a parallel port moves 8 bits at a
time compared with 1 for USB. The drive can cache as much as it wants
and in a flat out race, USB would always loose.

On 9/28/2010 11:45 PM, homey wrote:
On 9/28/2010 5:46 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:59:11 -0400, the renowned "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Nico Coesel wrote:

Jim
wrote:

In keeping with my policy of staying way behind the bleeding edge of
technology, the only DVD burner I have is a stand-alone Sony unit
that
I feed video from my camcorder or DVD player.

What do you fellow lurkers recommend for an external DVD burner
that's
easy to move from PC to PC?

Avoid anything with a parallel port. USB is the way to go these days.


I've never seen a parallel port DVD burner.

CD writer, yes. Eg. HP 7200e, but that's probably more than a decade
old.


I have a couple parallel port CDROM drives, but the idea of using a
parallel port for a DVD? It would be a very slow& painful process.


And why would that be? In this case, a parallel port moves 8 bits at a
time compared with 1 for USB. The drive can cache as much as it wants
and in a flat out race, USB would always loose.


But the transfer rate of the parallel port is ultimately limited by its
clock rate, which for backwards-compatibility reasons is going to be
limited to the clock rate of the original ISA bus, which was 8Mhz. ECP
transfer mode could do something like 1.5 MB/s, which even USB 1.0 full
speed easily beats.

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 23:45:04 -0400, homey wrote:
On 9/28/2010 5:46 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:59:11 -0400, the renowned "Michael A. Terrell"
Nico Coesel wrote:
Jim

In keeping with my policy of staying way behind the bleeding edge of
technology, the only DVD burner I have is a stand-alone Sony unit
that I feed video from my camcorder or DVD player.

What do you fellow lurkers recommend for an external DVD burner
that's easy to move from PC to PC?

Avoid anything with a parallel port. USB is the way to go these days.

I've never seen a parallel port DVD burner.

CD writer, yes. Eg. HP 7200e, but that's probably more than a decade
old.

I have a couple parallel port CDROM drives, but the idea of using a
parallel port for a DVD? It would be a very slow& painful process.

And why would that be? In this case, a parallel port moves 8 bits at a
time compared with 1 for USB. The drive can cache as much as it wants and
in a flat out race, USB would always loose.

I'd think if the device driver writer knows his/her elbow from a hole in
the ground, the parallel port could probably run at the speed of the
internal data bus, which is what? 133 MBPS?

Thanks,
Rich

homey wrote:

On 9/28/2010 5:46 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:59:11 -0400, the renowned "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Nico Coesel wrote:

Jim
wrote:

In keeping with my policy of staying way behind the bleeding edge of
technology, the only DVD burner I have is a stand-alone Sony unit that
I feed video from my camcorder or DVD player.

What do you fellow lurkers recommend for an external DVD burner that's
easy to move from PC to PC?

Avoid anything with a parallel port. USB is the way to go these days.


I've never seen a parallel port DVD burner.

CD writer, yes. Eg. HP 7200e, but that's probably more than a decade
old.


I have a couple parallel port CDROM drives, but the idea of using a
parallel port for a DVD? It would be a very slow& painful process.


And why would that be? In this case, a parallel port moves 8 bits at a
time compared with 1 for USB. The drive can cache as much as it wants
and in a flat out race, USB would always loose.


Then you should have no problem showing where to buy them and to
advise us which, of several hundred models is the best.


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:59:11 -0400, the renowned "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Nico Coesel wrote:

Jim Thompson
wrote:

In keeping with my policy of staying way behind the bleeding edge of
technology, the only DVD burner I have is a stand-alone Sony unit that
I feed video from my camcorder or DVD player.

What do you fellow lurkers recommend for an external DVD burner that's
easy to move from PC to PC?

Avoid anything with a parallel port. USB is the way to go these days.


I've never seen a parallel port DVD burner.

CD writer, yes. Eg. HP 7200e, but that's probably more than a decade
old.


An old fart like JT should get a Zip drive.

homey wrote:

On 9/28/2010 5:46 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Spehro Pefhany wrote:


On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:59:11 -0400, the renowned "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Nico Coesel wrote:


Jim
wrote:

In keeping with my policy of staying way behind the bleeding edge of
technology, the only DVD burner I have is a stand-alone Sony unit
that
I feed video from my camcorder or DVD player.

What do you fellow lurkers recommend for an external DVD burner
that's
easy to move from PC to PC?


Avoid anything with a parallel port. USB is the way to go these days.



I've never seen a parallel port DVD burner.


CD writer, yes. Eg. HP 7200e, but that's probably more than a decade
old.



I have a couple parallel port CDROM drives, but the idea of using a
parallel port for a DVD? It would be a very slow& painful process.


And why would that be? In this case, a parallel port moves 8 bits at a
time compared with 1 for USB. The drive can cache as much as it wants
and in a flat out race, USB would always loose.

It's all about marketing.. Saving copper etc...

It's easy to convince people that a good method is not
good by simply not implementing a faster version of it and
instead, make a single wire system that uses less material and
say it's better technology..

Sheep and lambs. what a herding., that's it!

"Jamie" t wrote in message
...
It's easy to convince people that a good method is not
good by simply not implementing a faster version of it and
instead, make a single wire system that uses less material and
say it's better technology..

While this is arguably true, in the case of USB they weren't just trying to
replace some particular method, they were trying to consolodate lots of
different interfaces into one: the legacy parallel ports, serial ports and
PS/2 ports -- poof!, all USB these days. They also effectively created a new
interface for battery chargers, although I don't think that was their intent.
:-)

The smaller cable size isn't that big of a deal, but it is kinda nice.
Especially these days now that USB is fast -- a USB 2.0 (480Mbps) is a real
joy compared to some of the horrors like the SCSI ultra wide cables!

---Joel

Jamie wrote:

homey wrote:

On 9/28/2010 5:46 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Spehro Pefhany wrote:


On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:59:11 -0400, the renowned "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Nico Coesel wrote:


Jim
wrote:

In keeping with my policy of staying way behind the bleeding edge of
technology, the only DVD burner I have is a stand-alone Sony unit
that
I feed video from my camcorder or DVD player.

What do you fellow lurkers recommend for an external DVD burner
that's
easy to move from PC to PC?


Avoid anything with a parallel port. USB is the way to go these days.



I've never seen a parallel port DVD burner.


CD writer, yes. Eg. HP 7200e, but that's probably more than a decade
old.



I have a couple parallel port CDROM drives, but the idea of using a
parallel port for a DVD? It would be a very slow& painful process.


And why would that be? In this case, a parallel port moves 8 bits at a
time compared with 1 for USB. The drive can cache as much as it wants
and in a flat out race, USB would always loose.

It's all about marketing.. Saving copper etc...


Bull****. No 'Centronics' printer was designed for those speeds, so
a fasater version would be yset another port to contend with. Only an
idiot like you doesn't know the difference.


It's easy to convince people that a good method is not
good by simply not implementing a faster version of it and
instead, make a single wire system that uses less material and
say it's better technology..


That's why you're convinced that you know everything.


Sheep and lambs. what a herding., that's it!


Speak for yourself, wool boy. Just stay away from Phil, or you'll
never get out of his basement.


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

On 9/29/2010 12:44 AM, Bitrex wrote:
On 9/28/2010 11:45 PM, homey wrote:
On 9/28/2010 5:46 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:59:11 -0400, the renowned "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Nico Coesel wrote:

Jim
wrote:

In keeping with my policy of staying way behind the bleeding edge of
technology, the only DVD burner I have is a stand-alone Sony unit
that
I feed video from my camcorder or DVD player.

What do you fellow lurkers recommend for an external DVD burner
that's
easy to move from PC to PC?

Avoid anything with a parallel port. USB is the way to go these days.


I've never seen a parallel port DVD burner.

CD writer, yes. Eg. HP 7200e, but that's probably more than a decade
old.


I have a couple parallel port CDROM drives, but the idea of using a
parallel port for a DVD? It would be a very slow& painful process.


And why would that be? In this case, a parallel port moves 8 bits at a
time compared with 1 for USB. The drive can cache as much as it wants
and in a flat out race, USB would always loose.


But the transfer rate of the parallel port is ultimately limited by its
clock rate, which for backwards-compatibility reasons is going to be
limited to the clock rate of the original ISA bus, which was 8Mhz. ECP
transfer mode could do something like 1.5 MB/s, which even USB 1.0 full
speed easily beats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_1284

There isn't any reason parallel printers ports couldn't operate like
SCSI which is a parallel port itself. There's only serial and parallel
and all the Intel singers in the world ain't going to change that.

On a sunny day (Wed, 29 Sep 2010 20:05:46 -0400) it happened Jamie
t wrote in
:

And why would that be? In this case, a parallel port moves 8 bits at a
time compared with 1 for USB. The drive can cache as much as it wants
and in a flat out race, USB would always loose.

It's all about marketing.. Saving copper etc...

Not exactly, apart from the par port being 8 MHz only,
it would be very difficult to do high speed in a multipair screened cable.
Screened, with about 16 lines, makes a big fat cable, with many pF
capacitance between pairs and signal and ground.
100 KHz would be next to impossible over more then 1 meter.
(and that would be only 800 kB / s), less if you count control sequences.
I have a very old, very good webcam that uses the parport, 3 fps is the maximum for a
uncompressed 320x280 frame.


It's easy to convince people that a good method is not
good by simply not implementing a faster version of it and
instead, make a single wire system that uses less material and
say it's better technology..

This is true, but does not apply to the par port idea.
That is why we have USB and firewire.
Also why we have PCIE, serial links win at high speed.
Not to mention composite video over 50 Ohms coax, and what not.


Sheep and lambs. what a herding., that's it!

Yea, but you forget market forces.
Else we would still be using ISA....

Just imagine my 1TB external Seagate connected with a huge fat parallel cable...
About as thick as that screened parallel IDE one.
Not very practical.

homey wrote:

On 9/29/2010 12:44 AM, Bitrex wrote:
On 9/28/2010 11:45 PM, homey wrote:
On 9/28/2010 5:46 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:59:11 -0400, the renowned "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Nico Coesel wrote:

Jim
wrote:

In keeping with my policy of staying way behind the bleeding edge of
technology, the only DVD burner I have is a stand-alone Sony unit
that
I feed video from my camcorder or DVD player.

What do you fellow lurkers recommend for an external DVD burner
that's
easy to move from PC to PC?

Avoid anything with a parallel port. USB is the way to go these days.


I've never seen a parallel port DVD burner.

CD writer, yes. Eg. HP 7200e, but that's probably more than a decade
old.


I have a couple parallel port CDROM drives, but the idea of using a
parallel port for a DVD? It would be a very slow& painful process.


And why would that be? In this case, a parallel port moves 8 bits at a
time compared with 1 for USB. The drive can cache as much as it wants
and in a flat out race, USB would always loose.


But the transfer rate of the parallel port is ultimately limited by its
clock rate, which for backwards-compatibility reasons is going to be
limited to the clock rate of the original ISA bus, which was 8Mhz. ECP
transfer mode could do something like 1.5 MB/s, which even USB 1.0 full
speed easily beats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_1284

There isn't any reason parallel printers ports couldn't operate like
SCSI which is a parallel port itself. There's only serial and parallel
and all the Intel singers in the world ain't going to change that.


And you aren't going to change the laws of physics.


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

On 30/09/2010 12:57, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 29 Sep 2010 20:05:46 -0400) it happened Jamie
t wrote in
:

And why would that be? In this case, a parallel port moves 8 bits at a
time compared with 1 for USB. The drive can cache as much as it wants
and in a flat out race, USB would always loose.

It's all about marketing.. Saving copper etc...

Not exactly, apart from the par port being 8 MHz only,
it would be very difficult to do high speed in a multipair screened cable.
Screened, with about 16 lines, makes a big fat cable, with many pF
capacitance between pairs and signal and ground.
100 KHz would be next to impossible over more then 1 meter.

3 wire handshake and IEEE488 (originally HPIB/GPIB) was good for around
1Mb/s bulk transfer rate if you were careful, and about 1/3rd of that if
you were not. It is an ancient HP specification dating back to 1975. You
could certainly have cable runs of a few metres working at nearly full
speed (off label). Stacked GPIB connectors would sometimes pull smaller
kit off a table by their physical weight and very stiff cables.

Still in use for some instrumentation but now largely replaced by
Ethernet or USB. One clear advantage was that the GPIB connectors are
chunky enough to survive the rough and tumble in industrial test
environments. According to Wiki NI introduced HS-488 which is allegedly
good for up to 8Mbyte/s in 2003 (never used it though).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE-488

(and that would be only 800 kB / s), less if you count control sequences.
I have a very old, very good webcam that uses the parport, 3 fps is the maximum for a
uncompressed 320x280 frame.


It's easy to convince people that a good method is not
good by simply not implementing a faster version of it and
instead, make a single wire system that uses less material and
say it's better technology..

This is true, but does not apply to the par port idea.
That is why we have USB and firewire.
Also why we have PCIE, serial links win at high speed.
Not to mention composite video over 50 Ohms coax, and what not.


Sheep and lambs. what a herding., that's it!

Yea, but you forget market forces.
Else we would still be using ISA....

Just imagine my 1TB external Seagate connected with a huge fat parallel cable...
About as thick as that screened parallel IDE one.
Not very practical.

External SCSI did it that way for a while. And in the early days when
USB stood for Unstable Serial Bus the more expensive Firewire gear had
the edge. The best advice for the OP is to select something that likes
roughly the same quality media as the DVD writer he already has. Might
also be worth considering a BlueRay unit to get twice the capacity.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On a sunny day (Sat, 02 Oct 2010 13:49:27 +0100) it happened Martin Brown
wrote in
:

External SCSI did it that way for a while. And in the early days when
USB stood for Unstable Serial Bus the more expensive Firewire gear had
the edge. The best advice for the OP is to select something that likes
roughly the same quality media as the DVD writer he already has. Might
also be worth considering a BlueRay unit to get twice the capacity.

Regards,
Martin Brown

You can get some more speed with multicore cables by using [twisted] differential pairs.
But once you do that, then you may as well send everything over one pair...
Ethernet...
Then you use the characteristic impedance of the cable, say transmission line.
The par port doed NOT use that, it is pure capacitive, in the old IBM PC
they even had a little capacitor from each par port pin to ground against RFI :-)